Convicted Montco pill mill doctor, son lose bids for new trial

NORRISTOWN — A Franconia doctor convicted of running a pill mill for addicts and his son, who managed the doctor’s office, have lost their bids for new trials and will remain in state prison where they are serving their sentences.

Montgomery County Judge Gary S. Silow on Tuesday denied the appeals of Dr. Richard Ruth, 78, and his son, Michael, 46, who are currently in prison in connection with their activities at their once thriving medical office in the 200 block of Cherry Lane in Franconia. The judge issued the denials without further comment.

Ruth and his son are represented by defense lawyers Martin P. Mullaney and Francis J. Genovese. If the Ruths file an appeal of Silow’s order to the state Superior Court, then the judge will have to write an opinion outlining his reasons for denying the men new trials.

Richard Ruth, of the 300 block of Godshall Road, is currently serving a 15- to 30-year sentence in state prison for overprescribing powerful painkillers to drug-addicted patients. Michael Ruth, of East Rockhill, Bucks County, is currently serving a 7- to 22-year sentence in state prison.

Advertisement

During a trial last November, Ruth and his son each was convicted by a jury of charges of corrupt organizations, identity theft, insurance fraud, dealing in proceeds of unlawful activities and conspiracy in connection with incidents that occurred between 2010 and 2011 at their medical office. The jury also convicted Richard Ruth of prescribing controlled substances to nine drug dependent patients and multiple counts of the unlawful prescription of controlled substances by a practitioner.

The trial before Silow was one of the first in Montgomery County at which a doctor was charged with overprescribing medications like oxycodone for profit, an issue that has garnered national attention in recent years.

In the appeals, Genovese argued the sentence imposed against Richard Ruth represented “cruel and unusual punishment” in light of Ruth’s advanced age and his lack of a prior criminal history and is essentially “a life-sentence.” Absent a new trial, Genovese asked Silow to reconsider the sentence.

In the request for a new trial, Richard Ruth, through Genovese, alleged prosecutors violated American Bar Association Standards of Prosecutorial Investigation and Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure by failing to inform Ruth and Silow that Ruth’s trial lawyer, Gregory R. Noonan, was under investigation for drug-related activity at the same time as Ruth’s trial last November. Genovese maintained Ruth’s due process rights were violated and that he deserves a new trial as a result.

Although Michael Ruth was not represented by Noonan, Genovese argued Noonan was the lead lawyer at the combined trial and therefore Michael Ruth also is entitled to a new trial.

Noonan, 54, of Towamencin, who represented Richard Ruth at trial, has pleaded guilty to charges in connection with two oxycodone sales to undercover detectives between Nov. 23 and Dec. 19, 2013, and is awaiting sentencing. With the charges, authorities alleged Noonan sold an undercover Philadelphia police officer 179 oxycodone pills, with the agreement he’d be paid $15 per pill, while the pair met inside Noonan’s 1997 Jaguar vehicle parked in the 500 block of Swede Street in Norristown about 6:55 p.m. Nov. 23.

The Nov. 23 drug sale, according to court documents, occurred just one day after Noonan wrapped up the trial at which Richard Ruth was convicted of charges he ran a corrupt organization from his medical office.

In court papers, Genovese and Mullaney contend First Assistant District Attorney Kevin R. Steele “had an affirmative duty” and “a legal obligation” to inform the judge about Noonan’s involvement in the illegal distribution of narcotics and of the investigation of Noonan and contend that potential charges against Noonan created “a conflict of interest” concerning Noonan’s representation of Ruth. The investigation of Noonan calls into question the integrity and fairness of the trial and Noonan’s ability to represent Ruth, Genovese and Mullaney implied.

Genovese maintained the investigation of Noonan was occurring at the same time as Ruth’s trial.

But Steele argued that the petition for a new trial was “devoid of merit” and “illustrative of a disappointed criminal defendant.” Steele maintained the defendants and their lawyers were “desperately groping for straws that don’t exist.”

Steele claimed Richard Ruth and his lawyers cited “no relevant legal authority” to support their assertion that prosecutors were obligated to inform the judge about an ongoing investigation.

About the Author

Carl Hessler Jr. writes about crime and justice at the Montgomery County Courthouse for The Mercury and 21st Century Media Newspaper’s Greater Philadelphia area publications. A native of Reading, he studied at Penn State University and Kutztown University before graduating from Alvernia University with a degree in communications. He is a recipient of a National Headliner Award and has been honored for his writing by the Keystone Press Association, Philadelphia Press Association, Society of Professional Journalists and the Associated Press Managing Editors of Pennsylvania. Reach the author at chessler@pottsmerc.com
or follow Carl on Twitter: @MontcoCourtNews.